Do you control what you believe?

[Edwardo Piet]

The fact that it already bespeaks a pre-existing desire for self-knowledge just shows that our conscious motivation comes from conscious motivation. Which I have said, can happen.

[IATIA]

A decision is making a choice. A choice is a set of options.

And are you defining our "set of options" as necessarily free? Or can we have a "set of options" and it not be free because despite the fact that they're "optional", they are only optional in the sense that they are possible and it is ultimately not us that is doing the opting?

I am defining nothing as free. For any thought, desire, choice, decision, (whatever word you wish, just pop it in there) to be free, there must be some thought that did not originate from the biochemical reactions of the body. It is moot what leads to this point. If the conscious mind has a thought that is not a direct deterministic result of the physiology of the body, then from whence did this thought come?

To make a decision or to choose from a set of options is the same thing.

So the question is then, do you define all decision-making as free-decision making? If you do, then if "free will" is the ability to make free decisions then that would imply that by merely making decisions we have "free will"

I believe that we are no more than a highly developed bio-mechanical robot that is completely subservient to the physiological processes of the robot. Our awareness is simply an illusion that 'tricks' us into believing that we have a choice.

The semantics of making a decision to choose have no bearing on the free will process.

True, but if we are going to talk about the relevance of whether "free will" exists or not it needs a definition, otherwise we don't even know what we're talking about, so semantics is relevant to us discussing "free will". If we get one definition of "free will" mixed up with another we're not talking about the same thing, we're equivocating.

I do not think so. Regardless of the semantics of decision/choice or the levels involved, the question is where does any free will originate?

There is not an issue of infinite regression. Everything we are, starts with the Big bang (or for the theists, "let there be light").

I'm saying that if our conscious motivation needs more of our conscious motivation to have "free will" then for the same reason we'd keep needing more and more and so that leads to an infinite regress. So we only have "free will" if we draw the line somewhere. If we don't and we follow the logic of "conscious motivation requires conscious motivation for free will to work" then it leads to an infinite regress, so that kind of "free will" can't work.

Is an amoeba aware? At what point does awareness kick in? does it take two cells or two trillion? how about one trillion nine hundred and ninety nine cells? This is your cut off. You cannot let yourself get caught in Zeno's paradox or else the infinite regression arises.

As far as an individual is concerned, the determinism that brought them into being has little effect other than bring them to being.

If everything that exists in the universe, including them, and including everything they've ever done said or thought and all their motives for action, all of their "will", is ultimately entirely determined from the big-bang, how do they have "free will"? Where do you draw the line between "will" and "free will"? At what point did their existence have a will and then at what point did that will become free? And if their will became free as soon as it existed, how is it free if it's determined entirely out of no choice of their own?

And that my dear Watson is the crux of the situation. Theists will have you believe that god initiated free will. As there is no god, it would not be possible for free will to 'appear' ergo, there is no free will.

Everything after that is what shapes who we are and what decisions we will make.

And everything done is still ultimately entirely determined from the big bang. It's a causal chain. We're part of the causal chain of the universe, including our decisions. So we don't have "free will". Or, if there isn't a causal chain then the universe is indeterministic so we can't determine anything, so we have no "free will".

This is where it can truly get involved. Quantum mechanics does not project the path of a particle or wave, it projects the "statistically probable' path of a particle. This means that one really cannot project far into the future. If a particle or wave did not take the highest probable path, that would affect any future calculations.

We really are not in control.

Ultimately we're not in control at all. I agree. Libertarian "free will" is false. But we are in control in the sense that fatalism is false: We do have motives and those motivations of course motivate us and influence our life, so, in another sense, that is our "control".

Again, the nature of consciousness only 'tricks' us into believing that we have any control.

[...]Your awareness will always exist attached to some reality.

Therefore our awareness is ultimately entirely determined from the big bang because it is attached to reality. And if our awareness and therefore our conscious motivation is ultimately entirely determined from the big bang then, how do we have "free will"?

This is the out of context portion. That statement was based on the philosophies of an awareness within the quantum world, not from the body and is not necessarily my viewpoint.

The bottom line in this train of thought is that if this is true, then one should be able to force this shift of worlds through other means. Now you're talking free will.

If the "quantum suicide" philosophies are correct, then we truly do have free will and how to control it rather than 'drive it' remains the ultimate question.How could we force it if the world is indeterministic? If the world is indeterministic then our "will" can't be determined so we can't determine our "will" ourselves so, in what sense is it "free"? And if our "will" can't determine anything because the world is indeterministic in what sense do you mean we could "force" anything?

Actually, in an "indeterministic" world, control is easy. An "indeterministic" world allows for true free will, but still does not explain the origin. IMHO, I believe that if MY awareness is all that is real and everything else is simply a construct of my imagination, then free will can exist and control of my total existence can exist.

On the other hand if the scientifically indeterministic - in the sense that it is unpredictable - quantum world is nevertheless philosophically deterministic, then everything is still ultimately entirely determined so in what sense do we ever "force" anything if "we" are ultimately entirely forced by the causal chain back to the big-bang that precedes us?

The half-life of uranium-238 4.468 billion years. This means that in ANY sample of uranium-238, at the end of 4.468 billion years, one half of the sample will have decayed. This is a clockwork system of precision. There are other radioactive materials and they all have the same properties albeit different half-lives. Fully, precisely, predictable. But we have not a clue one which atom is next or why. Absolutely, completely unpredictable. If they do one day figure it out, then the last vestige of hope for any free will or indeterminate universe flushes down the drain.

[Edwardo Piet]

]I am defining nothing as free. For any thought, desire, choice, decision, (whatever word you wish, just pop it in there) to be free, there must be some thought that did not originate from the biochemical reactions of the body. It is moot what leads to this point. If the conscious mind has a thought that is not a direct deterministic result of the physiology of the body, then from whence did this thought come?

If nothing is free then the will isn't free.

It doesn't matter where our thoughts come from: They are ultimately entirely determined by unconsciousness or ultimately entirely undetermined.

]I believe that we are no more than a highly developed bio-mechanical robot that is completely subservient to the physiological processes of the robot. Our awareness is simply an illusion that 'tricks' us into believing that we have a choice.

Do you believe that we have no conscious motives?

]I do not think so. Regardless of the semantics of decision/choice or the levels involved, the question is where does any free will originate?

It makes no sense to question where free will originated if you don't understand the question. If you equivocate one kind of free will with another, then you can't ask the question properly. If you ask the question without having any definition of free will at all, then the question is pointless.

]Is an amoeba aware? At what point does awareness kick in? does it take two cells or two trillion? how about one trillion nine hundred and ninety nine cells? This is your cut off. You cannot let yourself get caught in Zeno's paradox or else the infinite regression arises.

My point was demonstrating that you can't get libertarian free will from conscious motivation.

And that my dear Watson is the crux of the situation. Theists will have you believe that god initiated free will. As there is no god, it would not be possible for free will to 'appear' ergo, there is no free will.

With or without a god, the concept of libertarian free will is logically incoherent.

]This is where it can truly get involved. Quantum mechanics does not project the path of a particle or wave, it projects the "statistically probable' path of a particle. This means that one really cannot project far into the future. If a particle or wave did not take the highest probable path, that would affect any future calculations.

Still, that's the unpredictability of the universe, it doesn't mean that the universe is philosophically indeterministic, it just means that at least thus far, it is scientifically indeterministic.

Again, the nature of consciousness only 'tricks' us into believing that we have any control.

Do you believe in conscious motivation?

It really is relevant to at least know whether you're talking about a compatibilistic or incompatibilistic sense of "free will" because they're completely different senses of "free will".

[Angrboda]

On the other hand if the scientifically indeterministic - in the sense that it is unpredictable - quantum world is nevertheless philosophically deterministic, then everything is still ultimately entirely determined so in what sense do we ever "force" anything if "we" are ultimately entirely forced by the causal chain back to the big-bang that precedes us?

The half-life of uranium-238 4.468 billion years. This means that in ANY sample of uranium-238, at the end of 4.468 billion years, one half of the sample will have decayed. This is a clockwork system of precision. There are other radioactive materials and they all have the same properties albeit different half-lives. Fully, precisely, predictable. But we have not a clue one which atom is next or why. Absolutely, completely unpredictable. If they do one day figure it out, then the last vestige of hope for any free will or indeterminate universe flushes down the drain.

This type of predictability would require the demonstration of what is known as a hidden variable theory (of quantum mechanics). There was a communication in the last year in Nature Communications, IIRC, that claimed to demonstrate that no hidden variable theory could yield better predictive ability than the current interpretation and framework. If that result is robust, it would seem to indicate that such hidden variable theories cannot improve on our ability to predict the results of radioactive decay, which is basically zero predictability.

If I accept your argument as-is, it would seem you are suggesting that such predictive ability would preclude any free will. (I sense Heisenberg's ghost in the room.) However, I would note that this seems to be an argument from ignorance. As such, I couldn't at this point accept your conclusion. Perhaps, just as with theism and atheism, there is a tendency to want to try to prove the negative that there is no such thing as free will, when, perhaps it would be more prudent to dispense with specific individual claims made by proponents of the existence of free will.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well what can I say? My mind is blown by information. By the way, how apophenic are you exactly?

[clemdog14]

I say that I do control what I believe even though my "self" has been sculpted as a slate. For instance, everyone is a living "history" in that their environment, human interactions, upbringing, education, etc. have influenced their thoughts and ideas.

The remarkable thing is that I can actually choose what I believe in. Even though I was brought up in a Christian household, I still remember the day of actively choosing to believe in Christ.

Some might say that my upbringing has caused my religious beliefs. Is this true? Maybe partially, however, I still remember making the active choice of choosing whether or not I actually believed in it.

On the note of Pascal's wager, it is pretty weak philosophically. Sure, there may be a chance that you do not lose anything from belief in God; however, I believe that Hume would question which God I was talking about. Is it the Christian God? Perhaps a divine council? It's weak.

[IATIA]

I say that I do control what I believe even though my "self" has been sculpted as a slate. For instance, everyone is a living "history" in that their environment, human interactions, upbringing, education, etc. have influenced their thoughts and ideas.

By what 'magic' do you control what you believe?

Where does this control originate, if not a product of the physiology of the body?

A theist can fall back on the non-existent soul thing, but how can an atheist admit to some type of 'soul' or 'external thought' and still dismiss the possibility of a god?

[Whateverist]

By what 'magic' do you control what you believe?

And by what magic do 'you' care? Since both what I believe and what you think about that are, according to you, a fait accompli. Why should you indulge your involuntary preference that I concede my non-involvement in belief formation? I see no more reason to concede than do you and am no more caught up in the illusion than are you.

[Edwardo Piet]

Caring is not magic. It's a pretty natural process. Actually it's a completely natural process, if or maybe when we are speaking "natural" in the sense of the opposite to "supernatural". Just like everything else.

[naimless]

I believe I don't control what I believe. I once did, though, and that was a cool experience.